The CBC grew a spine?
According to this, it appears they did!
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the $6 billion boycott.
By boycotting a key House committee vote last week and threatening to abandon support for banking regulations, members of the Congressional Black Caucus got $4 billion added to a Wall Street regulation bill and $2 billion to a proposed House jobs bill in spending they sought for African-American communities.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this week inserted $3 billion to the legislation to provide low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners in danger of foreclosure. He added $1 billion for neighborhood revitalization programs.
The money would come out of the $700 billion financial rescue fund.
Isn't this interesting? They finally get some spine.
There are some people who look at the political opposition to the Obama administration and wonder where this type of anger/fervor/strong opposition was when Bush was in office and wonder if it is because a Black man is president or flat out state the opposition exists because it is a Black man is president. Frankly, I think there is some merit in wondering that, but I want to take this in a slightly different direction.
Where was the CBC's spine when the Dems controlled congress and Clinton was in office? The CBC wouldn't stand up to the almighty "white man", then, but they'll stand up to "the brutha"? Why is the CBC not showing the same type of deference to President Obama that they showed to President Clinton? Could it be because they are afraid of the white powers that be in the Democrat party? *DAMN SKIPPY*!!!
That's right! I put it out there!
H/T: Booker Rising
The fact of the matter boils down to simple math. There are more Af-Ams in Congress now than at any point in history, and some have achieved very powerful positions as committee chairs, e.g.; Conyers, Rangel, or as officers in the Democratic Party, i.e.; Clyburn. As such, they're in much better position to exercise leverage that just recently you claimed they didn't have.
Posted by: MIB | December 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM
The CBC with few exceptions rode the wrong horse in the 2008 primaries. They were swinging from Hillary's mammaries (by proxy, Bill's scrotum), while misreading their constituents, who were voting en masse for the other guy.
Now they want to be at the head of the line that they joined late? GTFOOH.
Posted by: brotherbrown | December 13, 2009 at 02:34 PM
you crack me up, DarkStar, on this. yes, they are standing up for their constituents....finally.
Posted by: rikyrah | December 13, 2009 at 04:19 PM
As such, they're in much better position to exercise leverage that just recently you claimed they didn't have.
When Clinton was in office and the Dems controlled Congress, they had leverage. They just didn't know how to use it or want to use it.
They didn't need to be chairmen in order to block some bills.
Posted by: DarkStar | December 13, 2009 at 08:45 PM
Democrats only controlled the House for the first two years of Clinton's 8 years in office, remember?
And contrary to your opinion, chairs, in both the House and the Senate have a considerable influence on which bills are introduced in committee, how their introduced, and when, if ever, they're introduced.
Posted by: MIB | December 14, 2009 at 09:43 AM